False balance (also called fake balance, the balance fallacy, and bothsidesism) occurs when multiple things (like theories) are presented as more equal to each other in some regard (like level of supporting evidence) than they really are. For example, false balance occurs when a journalist presents the baseless opinion of a random layperson as being equally informed as the evidence-based perspective of a scientific expert.
False balance is a common and problematic phenomenon, so it’s important to understand it. As such, in the following article you will learn more about false balance, and see what you can do about it in practice.
Examples of false balance
An example of false balance in the media is a news report on climate change that misleadingly presents stances from scientific experts and non-expert contrarians as if they’re equally supported by evidence. Similarly, the same could occur in other contexts, for instance if a Wikipedia article gives undue weight to fringe opinion, which could mislead people into thinking that it’s well supported as more robust theories about a certain phenomenon.
Another example of false balance is when someone who spreads health misinformation on social media (for instance by saying that vaccines cause autism) is falsely presented as having the same level of expertise and supporting evidence as scientists who debunk this misinformation.
Further examples of false balance have also appear in various other domains, including ones where this technique was used intentionally, in other to spread doubt:
Decades ago, tobacco companies realised confounding public understanding was their strongest defence against the inescapable evidence that their product was highly toxic. A now infamous internal memo from 1969 makes for ominous reading: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy”. Tobacco executives and the public relation firms they engaged stoked a manufactured controversy, which succeeded for decades to lure the general public into a perception that the health risks of smoking were unclear, when the scientific evidence was unambiguous.
That revealing memo remains a blueprint for those eager to negate overwhelming scientific consensus. Parallels with contemporary efforts by the fossil fuel lobby to downplay climate change are hard to overstate—they essentially read from the same script…
The tobacco and fossil fuel industries have obvious financial incentives to muddy the waters. But false balance is frequently the unwitting ally of ideological positions bereft of evidence, occurring in arenas with no obvious financial interests. Evolutionary theory is the bedrock of modern biology. To biblical creationists however, it is seen as borderline blasphemous as it contradicts biblical accounts of the dawn of mankind. In 1999, religious conservatives began to promote “Intelligent design” (ID) as an alternative to evolution by natural selection. It was nothing more than a rebranding of creationism with the pretence of science. Even so, its promoters argued that as evolution was merely a theory, then their theory was equally valid, and should be taught alongside evolution.”
— From “A Dangerous Balancing Act” (Grimes, 2019)
Finally, note that the use of false balance has been criticized often, especially in the context of media:
“These devious tactics rely on exploiting the journalistic desire for balance. And to be fair to journalists, striving to eliminate bias is admirable. In matters of opinion and politics, treating opposing views as equally worthy of merit is generally a sensible approach. But this policy breaks down utterly for scientific issues, where positions and consensus are crafted based on the preponderance of evidence. If one position is buttressed by an overwhelming weight of evidence while another is bereft of empirical support, it is profoundly wrong-headed to treat them as equal. And yet, this is precisely what occurs all too often in the coverage of scientific issues.”
— From “A Dangerous Balancing Act” (Grimes, 2019)
This type of criticism has also been succinctly phrased as follows:
“If one person says that it’s raining and another person says that it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. It’s your job to look out the window and find out which is true.”
— Attributed to Journalism Studies lecturer Jonathan Foster
Related fallacies
Several fallacies are closely related to false balance:
- False equivalence. False equivalence is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone incorrectly asserts that two or more things are equivalent, simply because they share some characteristics, despite the fact that there are also notable differences between them. For example, a false equivalence is saying that cats and dogs are the same animal, since they’re both mammals and have a tail. Because of the similarity between this and false balance, the names of the two fallacies are sometimes used interchangeably, though they’re distinct from one another.
- Appeal to moderation. The appeal to moderation is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone asserts that if there are two opposing positions, then the truth must lie somewhere between them (usually near the middle). For example, this fallacy occurs when someone states that if some well-supported stance is contradicted by unsupported misinformation, then the truth must lie somewhere between them. This fallacy is sometimes also called the argument to moderation, fallacy of moderation, false compromise fallacy, middle ground fallacy, golden-mean fallacy, and argumentum ad temperantiam.
- Appeal to false authority. The appeal to false authority is a fallacious argument that relies on the statements of a false authority figure, who is framed as a credible authority on the topic being discussed. For example, an appeal to false authority could involve saying that we should listen to what an uninformed movie star has to say about different types of advanced medical treatments.
These fallacies can occur together. For example, this can happen when someone with no expertise presents a pseudoscientific theory (based on false authority) as being equally supported to a well-founded scientific theory (creating false balance), while stating that the truth must be somewhere in the middle between (in an appeal to moderation).
False imbalance
False imbalance occurs when multiple things (like theories) are presented as less equal to each other in some regard (like level of supporting evidence) than they actually are.
For example, false imbalance occurs when a journalist presents one scientific theory as having far less support than another theory, even though both theories are supported by evidence. Similarly, another example of false imbalance is a politician who presents one expert as being much more knowledgeable on some topic than another expert, even though both experts are knowledgeable to a similar degree.
False imbalance can occur for various reasons, such as that someone is trying to make their viewpoint appear better supported than it actually is. It can also occur when someone goes too far in their attempts to avoid false balance, and ends up causing the opposite issue.
False false-balance
False false-balance occurs when balance between things is wrongly claimed to be false. For example, false false-balance occurs when a journalist is wrongly criticized for presenting two sides as having equal support, even though both sides actually do have equal support.
False false-balance can occur for many reasons, such as failing to properly assess the situation before accusing someone of false balance, or intentionally wanting to damage someone’s reputation.
Causes of false balance
People promote false balance for many reasons. These can be broadly categorized as:
- Good intentions. For example, this can involve wanting to be objective, impartial, and unbiased. This can also involve wanting to acknowledge all sides in a debate and give everyone an equal chance to be heard, including those who otherwise won’t have a chance to express themselves (e.g., because their views are controversial).
- Malicious intentions. For example, this can involve wanting to make unsupported views appear more credible than they are, by equating them with well-established views and discussing them in respected venues, to spread uncertainty. This can also involve wanting to sensationalize and dramatize a debate in order to get media attention, by pretending there’s controversy where there’s actually well-established consensus.
- Neutral reasons. For example, this can involve not wanting to put in the effort needed to find out which side is right, not wanting to commit to a specific position, or wanting to appear to be objective.
It’s especially important to remember that false balance can be caused by good intentions, since it means that not everyone who creates false balance does so intentionally and maliciously.
Dangers of false balance
False balance can cause various issues, including:
- Wrongly increasing the credibility of weak stances. For example, this can happen when a Wikipedia article on some phenomenon dedicates the same amount of space to the leading scientific theory on a topic as to some fringe pseudoscientific theory, which can mislead readers into thinking that the two theories are based on equal levels of evidence.
- Wrongly decreasing the credibility of strong stances. For example, this can happen when a media interview includes both an expert presenting extensive evidence and a non-expert presenting unsupported conspiracy theories, which can lead viewers to assume that the expert is as unreliable as the non-expert.
- Spreading and promoting problematic (e.g., false) information. For example, this can happen when someone is allowed to spread misinformation on social media for the sake of balance, or when two sides in a conflict are incorrectly presented as having equal blame when that’s not the case.
These issues, in turn, can cause various other problems, including:
- Confusing people regarding the certainty of various theories.
- Creating unjustified doubts about well-established theories.
- Obscuring what counts as evidence and who qualifies as an expert.
As one paper notes:
“False balance is insidious, giving dubious positions an illusion of respectability. While well-intended, it is all too frequently a Trojan horse that allows the most odious of fictions to gain a foothold. False balance creates a perception in the public mind that an issue is scientifically contentious, when it is not. This ultimately means that even urgent issues such as climate change can be dismissed as a mere difference of scientific opinion. This confounds not only public perception of science, but creates an aura of doubt, which can be abused to create a toxic inertia, beguiling us to sleep-walk into disaster or placidly accept situations we should vocally protest.”
— From “A Dangerous Balancing Act” (Grimes, 2019)
Finally, note that all this can have serious, real-world consequences, for example in the context of vaccine misinformation:
“Anti-vaccine activists have proven extraordinarily adept at exploiting false balance to evangelise their discredited views. The measles–mumps–rubella (MMR) vaccine controversy is an infamous illustration. In 1998, English gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield held a press conference about a paper he had published in the Lancet, speculating on a link between autism and the MMR vaccine. His evidence, however, was extraordinarily weak. Mainstream science and health writers noted such an explosive charge was poorly justified, and the story initially received scant attention. Anti-vaccine activists instead pitched it to non-specialist writers as a human interest story, imploring journalists without any scientific training to pontificate on the ostensible link between autism and the vaccine, and to report ‘both sides’.
This proved a devastatingly effective strategy. By the year 2000, a whole 10% of all science stories in the UK were related to MMR, over 80% of them authored by non-science journalists. In the words of physician and writer Ben Goldacre, ‘Suddenly we were getting comment and advice on complex matters of immunology and epidemiology from people who would more usually have been telling us about a funny thing that happened with the au pair on the way to a dinner party’. There was virtually no evidence that the vaccine was harmful, and an abundance of data showing it to be safe and effective. While public health bodies and scientists desperately tried to convey this reality, editors and writers lacked the requisite scientific background to weigh up the strength of evidence for these opposing claims. Presented with two wildly different narratives, they fell back upon the default assumption that mutually opposed views must have equal merit, warranting equal coverage. The resultant framing of the MMR vaccine as controversial was hugely damaging to public confidence, and uptake fell markedly.
Consequences were devastating: vaccination rates across Western Europe fell well below the 94% immunisation levels required to stem the onslaught of measles, a disease so virulent each single case tends to produce 12–18 secondary infections. A spate of cases ensued across the UK and Ireland, resulting in the deaths of innocent children. Around the same time, investigative journalist Brian Deer turned a more sceptical eye to Wakefield’s claims than the hagiography of many of his peers. His investigations ultimately exposed Wakefield’s autism–MMR link as fraudulent and unveiled financial and ethical conflicts of interest. With his work shown to be falsified, the paper was retracted, and Wakefield struck off for unethical behaviour. The damage, alas, was sadly done, with long-term consequence. Measles, once on the verge of eradication, has again taken a foothold around the world with record number of cases in both Europe and America this year, prompting the WHO to declare vaccine hesitancy a top 10 threat to public health.”
— From “A Dangerous Balancing Act” (Grimes, 2019)
How to respond to false balance
How you should respond to false balance depends on various factors, including:
- The topic being discussed and its consequences.
- The sides involved and how unbalanced they are.
- Who’s presenting the sides as balanced, and how and why they’re doing it.
- The context or venue in which the sides are presented.
- What you hope to achieve by responding to the false balance.
Once you assess these factors, you can decide if and how to respond to the false balance. When responding, you can use some combination of the following techniques:
- Point out the false balance. For example, you can explain how it’s being suggested that the sides are balanced, and why that’s wrong.
- Explain the dangers of the false balance. For example, you can explain that by falsely presenting the sides as balanced, a host is misinforming their audience about the scientific certainty on a topic.
- Ask guiding questions. For example, you can ask the host of a discussion whether they think that the two sides involved are balanced, and if so, then based on what.
- Focus on a different argument. For example, if you realize that it will be pointless or counterproductive to point out the false balance, then you can instead focus on presenting the case for one side of the debate to the best of your abilities.
In addition, it might be beneficial to address the reasoning behind the false balance. For example, if you think that it’s caused by good intentions, then you might say “I completely understand your decision to give all the sides involved an opportunity to be heard”, before moving on to explain that this created a dangerous false balance. Alternatively, if the false balance occurred due to bad intentions (e.g., a conflict of interests), then you could point that out.
When responding to false balance, it might also be necessary to respond to various logical fallacies and rhetorical techniques, like cherry-picking and Gish gallops. These are often used by those who tend to benefit from false balance, such as charlatans who promote pseudoscience.
Finally, it’s crucial to also remember that not all balance is false. For example, there are cases where evidence does support both sides equally, where the truth does lie somewhere in the middle, or where it’s truly unclear which side is right. And, there also are cases where two sides aren’t balanced, but this issue is properly addressed by the person who’s presenting them. As such, before responding to false balance, you should make sure that the balance in question is actually false, and if so then in what way and to what degree.
In summary, to respond to false balance, you can point it out, explain its dangers, ask guiding questions about it, address the intentions behind it, or focus on your original argument. When doing this, you should consider factors such as your goals in responding, and keep in mind that not all balance is false.
How to avoid false balance
To avoid promoting false balance, you should first consider the following, to understand the situation better:
- What sides are involved in the discussion? For example, are there two sides, and if so, then how would you describe them in terms of relevant factors such as their domain expertise?
- How balanced are the two sides? For example, how do they compare in terms of the scientific evidence that supports their stance?
- What’s your role? For example, are you discussing a controversy as an expert on the topic or as a journalist covering it for the first time?
- What’s the context? For example, are you providing a brief summary of some topic as an entry for a website or are you guiding an in-depth television debate?
- Who’s your audience? For example, are you talking to laypeople or academic experts?
- What are your goals? For example, are you trying to inform people about a topic or persuade them that a certain position is true?
After considering these, you can then decide the following:
- Which sides you should include. For example, you might decide that even though there are three sides involved in a debate on a topic, the third is so minor and controversial that it’s better to only mention the first two in an article you’re writing. Similarly, if you’re broadcasting an interview that’s meant to inform the public about an important topic on which there’s scientific consensus, then you might decide to include only scientific experts in your panel. Note that it’s often possible to find someone who believes in even the most ridiculous and unsupported viewpoints, and this doesn’t mean that you should give them a platform.
- How to include the sides. For example, if you’re engaging in science communication about some topic, you might choose to focus on the key theory that’s supported by most experts, but also briefly mention other positions, while noting the differences in their level of support. Similarly, if you’re hosting a debate between two people, and there’s a clear difference in expertise between them, you can explicitly mention this while introducing them to the audience. However, remember that although providing such caveats might be beneficial, it might also be insufficient, for example if people still struggle to realize that two sides are unbalanced, or if the very act of mentioning a controversial stance on a prestigious platform will appear to give it unjustified support.
In deciding how to act, you should consider the pros and cons of the different options. For instance, you might realize that even though presenting all the theories about a phenomenon provides laypeople with a bit more information, this comes at the cost of reduced clarity and increased misunderstandings, so it’s better to present only the main theory in a certain situation.
In addition, you should remember that even if your intentions in showing balance are good, creating false balance can nevertheless be more harmful than beneficial. For example, if a journalist creates false balance in an attempt to avoid biased reporting, this introduces new biases, by presenting information in a way that’s systematically distorted and misleading.
Finally, remember that not all balance is false, and there are many cases where presenting multiple sides in a balanced way can be entirely reasonable, so going too far in the attempt to avoid false balance can also be problematic, and lead to false imbalance. As such, you should always assess situations to determine whether balance is appropriate, and if so then in what way.
In summary, to avoid false balance, you should first consider factors such as which sides are involved and how balanced they are. Then, decide which sides to include and how to include them.
Summary and conclusions
- False balance occurs when multiple things (like theories) are presented as more equal to each other in some regard (like level of supporting evidence) than they really are.
- For example, false balance occurs when a journalist presents the baseless opinion of a random layperson as being equally informed to the evidence-based perspective of a scientific expert.
- To respond to false balance, you can explain why it’s false or ask questions that demonstrate this, explain the dangers of false balance, address the intentions that caused it (like a person’s desire to appear objective), or focus on a different argument that you want to convey.
- When responding, you should consider factors like what you aim to achieve, and keep in mind that not all balance is false.
- Make sure to also avoid promoting false balance yourself, by considering factors like how strong is the supporting evidence of several opposing stances, before deciding which ones to mention and how.